“I say in the book that maybe it’s just the wonderful wealth of experience that I now have,” she said. “Maybe it’s because I am totally done with, you know, being really careful about what to say because somebody might think this instead of that.”

“It just gets too exhausting and frustrating, and it just seemed a whole lot easier to just put it out there and [I] hope people get used to it,” she continued. “Whether you agree with it or not you know exactly where I come from, what I think, what I feel.”

Clinton went on to test out this new honesty vehicle by scolding the country for not being as forthright as she believes she has been for over a week now.

“There are so many big issues and I talk about some of them both internationally and nationally, and I don’t think we gain by either shouting matches or finger-pointing or biting one’s tongue,” she lamented. “I think we really need to have a very open straightforward conversation.”

“Maybe I’m trying to model that, I don’t know, but that’s how it feels to me,” Clinton concluded, “and it feels a little bit liberating, to be honest.”

Clinton may be confusing honesty and bluntness here. One of the most recent examples of Clinton’s newfound “honesty” came in the form of her asserting that she and her husband were “dead broke” and “struggled” when they departed from the White House in 2001.

This statement was so impeccably “honest” that it netted her a “mostly false” rating from the arch-conservative watchdog organization Politifact.

But Clinton was, as Politico’s Maggie Haberman observed, more likely referring to a testy exchange she had with NPR host Terry Gross this past week. In that interview, when asked about her recent evolution on the issue of same-sex marriage rights, Clinton accused Gross of being mendacious when the host said she was merely seeking a clarification about her change of heart by asking a series of follow-ups.

“No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify,” Clinton interjected defensively. “I think you are trying to say that I used to be opposed and now I am in favor and I did it for political reasons. And that’s just flat wrong.”

But her next sentence suggests that she is again confused about the definition of honesty. In this instance, Clinton was putting words in her interlocutor’s mouth and refuting an assertion which was never made. It’s a familiar tactic.

In fact, in the next breath, Clinton declared her intention to follow in President Barack Obama’s footsteps and continue his uncompromising war on straw men.

“Let me just state what I feel like I think you are implying and repudiate it,” Clinton told Gross.

In other words, allow me to summarize your position, even if it’s a position you do not hold, and submit a counterargument to my summary. That’s the kind of honesty and straight talk we’ve come accustomed to over the last six years.

It’s good to know the current level of “honesty” in the White House is what Americans should expect to continue if Clinton is elected to succeed the president in 2016.

This statement was so impeccably “honest” that it netted her a “mostly false” rating from the arch-conservative watchdog organization Politifact.

Arch-conservative?

The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a Pants on Fire for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.

Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being the Times endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest.

“I say in the book that maybe it’s just the wonderful wealth of experience that I now have,” she said. “Maybe it’s because I am totally done with, you know, being really careful about what to say because somebody might think this instead of that.”

“It just gets too exhausting and frustrating, and it just seemed a whole lot easier to just put it out there and [I] hope people get used to it,” she continued. “Whether you agree with it or not you know exactly where I come from, what I think, what I feel.”

On 710 WOR Friday morning, Mark Simone was comparing Hillary to Bill. They are both liars and untrustworthy opportunist, it’s just that Bill has the likable way of lying that makes people feel comfortable and forget he’s lying to them. Hillary doesn’t connect.

It occurred to me that this question sums up her condition. She’s spent so much time trying to emulate her husband, right down to that seemingly endless supply of badly tailored pantsuits, that she’s become, not a harridan, but the male version thereof.

I short, H.R. Clinton has become, indeed, ‘prickly’.

If we are making the observation in polite society, when a woman of advanced age becomes… ‘prickly’…we say she’s become matronly but is possessed of a foul temper, and that she has, thus, become a harridan. When an older man becomes … ‘prickly’… we say he’s become a crotchety old codger.

Full Definition of HONESTY
1obsolete : chastity
2a : fairness and straightforwardness of conduct
b : adherence to the facts : sincerity
3: any of a genus (Lunaria) of European herbs of the mustard family with toothed leaves and flat disk-shaped siliques*

*Definition of SILIQUE
: a narrow elongated 2-valved usually many-seeded capsule that is characteristic of the mustard family, opens by sutures at either margin, and has two parietal placentas

If you want to get a sense of how puny Clinton’s accomplishments at State were, you should read not her haters but her admirers. On Sunday in The New York Times, Nicholas Kristof devoted a whole column to praising Clinton’s record, and yet was unable to list anything that wasn’t a broad generalization. Kristof began by noting that, “Clinton achieved a great deal and left a hefty legacy—just not the traditional kind.” What was this legacy, you might ask?

Clinton recognized that our future will be more about Asia than Europe, and she pushed hard to rebalance our relations. She didn’t fully deliver on this ‘pivot’—generally she was more successful at shaping agendas than delivering on them—but the basic instinct to turn our ship of state to face our Pacific future was sound and overdue.

So Clinton “recognized” what is surely the single most noted thing in every discussion of American foreign policy, and even in Kritstof’s opinion wasn’t really able to do anything about it. What else?

A couple of times I moderated panels during the United Nations General Assembly in which she talked passionately—and bewilderingly, for some of the audience—about civil society, women leaders and agricultural investments. Pinstriped foreign and prime ministers looked on, happy to be considered important enough to be invited. They listened with increasingly furrowed brows, as if absorbing an alien language, as Clinton brightly spoke about topics such as “the business case for focusing on gender in agricultural development.”

This is all well and good but it isn’t much of a legacy. When he tries to turn to specifics, the best Kristof can come up with is that Clinton mentioned Muhammad Yunus in a speech. Kristof’s piece peters out after a few more moist, unspecific paragraphs.

The reason I quote Kristof at length is because his case is essentially the same as that of her opponents, who claim that she served without much distinction. It’s true that she put an admirable focus on women’s rights, and played a role in isolating Iran. But the Afghanistan surge didn’t seem to have a huge effect; Syria policy has been a failure, even if the alternatives were all bleak; Iraq has collapsed since our departure (again, good alternatives did not clearly present themself); she was probably too cautious about the Egyptian people’s overthrow of Hosni Mubarak, although that didn’t keep him in power; she backed the Libyan campaign, which currently must count as a mixed bag; and she did a lot of what Kristof describes, in terms of trying to streamline and broaden American diplomacy, and repair our relationships with the world. Even if she had some relative successes in these areas, America’s global popularity has declined since she took the job.

I hope she implodes and decides not to run – that’s the only chance we have for her NOT to be President. If she runs this time, no other Dem will have the cojones to run against her, and the Dem machine already in possession of Justice, IRS, FBI, Homeland Security, etc., will go into high gear and steal 2016, too. Methinks she’s as big an incompetent disaster as Obamanation, and her heart is in the same place as his.

With our current GOP leadership in Congress being solely concerned about their own survival rather than the survival of our freedoms and our Constitutional republic, we are soooooooooo screwed if she does run.

Ms. clinton may be finding out the god honest truth about her status in the lib world. she is neither a person of color nor is she sufficiently left. In other words she is not obama. It is rough now but i don’t doubt that in the end the media libs will come around if she is the nominee and go after her repub. opponent like sharks in a feeding frenzy.

It looks more like a comeuppance to me, Warm–with no quasi-political or political office to hide behind, Hillary’s finding out what life is like as Hillary Clinton, the person, rather than as, say, First Lady…Senator…Secretary of State… ;-)

With our current GOP leadership in Congress being solely concerned about their own survival rather than the survival of our freedoms and our Constitutional republic, we are soooooooooo screwed if she does run.

jclittlep on June 14, 2014 at 8:21 PM

They could run Sheila Jackson Lee and we would be just as screwed. Fact is, we are already screwed.

Does this mean that before this, Clinton has never been honest?
Is she admitting that she lied about Benghazi, Vince Foster, White Water, etc.?
Is she publicly admitting that she has never told the truth about anything?

OR

is she just reading the poles and Hot Air that said the biggest loss for Democrats is the loss of the trust of the People in their parties truth and veracity.

The answer should be easy to find out. Just ask the same questions that have dogged her for years and see if you get the same answers or different answers.

In 1996, Strom Thurmond said about Bob Dole, that he was incapable of telling a lie.

Today, I say about Hillary Clinton, that she is incapable of telling the truth. It’s not in her to do it. She does not have the capacity. There’s not a place of truth inside her, so when she will open her mouth, that any truth will ever come out. It’s not there. It’s not to be had, it’s not to be found. She can’t do it. Full stop. End of story.

Amazing. So she is basically saying she has finally gotten to a point in her life where lying constantly no longer works for her? But of course she never wanted to lie. She did it for us, because she wanted so badly not to offend us with the awesome weight of THE TRUTH.

That’s just the round about way of saying, “What difference does it make?” Hillary will not run and, if she does, she will not win. She can’t possibly tell people the truth and win an election, so we know that’s not going to happen. Hillary had her chance, in 2008 and people don’t really believe she would have been “better” than Obama. About the only thing that might make her a smidge better than Obama would be the people she surrounds herself with. At least a larger majority of them would be competent.

Look for the Democrats to have a Hispanic on the ticket in 2016. They’re not finished playing the first card that worked so well with Obama, although they’ll have to dump the race card for a while.

if this country has no better sense of what this country needs than to even consider, God forbig actually elect, HRC as the next president, not only is that sad and pathetic, it’s embarassing. I dont even understand why anyone would listen to her for even a minute. Even Bill must be cringing.

Clinton recognized that our future will be more about Asia than Europe, and she pushed hard to rebalance our relations. She didn’t fully deliver on this ‘pivot’—generally she was more successful at shaping agendas than delivering on them—but the basic instinct to turn our ship of state to face our Pacific future was sound and overdue.

Resist We Much on June 14, 2014 at 8:11 PM

————————————–

This reminds me of my old high school test answers I used to pad with BS when I had no idea what I was talking about but knew I had to write something that I thought sounded impressive.

I was in the book store this afternoon..I mentioned to the clerk that PAIPS book was so huge it could be used as a doorstop…and said when it was reduced soon to 75% off.people may buy it to use that way..she didn’t seem amused..guess, she did not understand my wry sense of humor…!!! and to amuse myself I bought the book that is beating her..the 10 day Green Smoothie Cleanse..Ok, ok. maybe I will lose a few pounds…and it gave me a perverse little thrill….

Hillary is a thoroughly amoral, ruthless politician and a continuation of the bankrupt progressive agenda. This country is on life-support right now because of O. Elect this woman and you’ll finish the job.